DOCSLIB.ORG

A Systematic Analysis of Behavior at Late Early Woodland Paired-Post

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Systematic Analysis of Behavior at Late Early Woodland Paired-Post A SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AT LATE EARLY WOODLAND PAIRED-POST CIRCLES A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS BY ERIC C. OLSON DR. KEVIN NOLAN – ADVISOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA MAY 2016 Contents Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Prior Classifications and Methods ................................................................................................................ 4 Description and Definition ....................................................................................................................... 5 Previous Interpretations ........................................................................................................................... 7 Models and predictive outcomes................................................................................................................. 15 Habitation ............................................................................................................................................... 15 Feasting .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Mortuary Processing .............................................................................................................................. 18 Feminine Space ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Methods and Data ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Excavation Reports and Catalogs ........................................................................................................... 21 Multiple Correspondence Analysis ......................................................................................................... 30 Spatial Dimensions ................................................................................................................................. 31 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Sayler Park Mound (33HA157) .............................................................................................................. 35 Multiple Correspondence Analysis ......................................................................................................... 37 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................................... 40 Spatial Distribution ................................................................................................................................. 41 Discussion and Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 43 Future Research and Quality of Data ..................................................................................................... 47 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 50 Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ 56 Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... 72 Acknowledgments Many thanks to Dr. Kevin C. Nolan for his diligence with comments, and his frequent guidance. I am also grateful for the comments from my committee members, Drs. Cailín Murray and Nick Kawa. I would like to thank Dr. S. Homes-Hogue for reading my thesis. I would also like to thank Robert Genheimer and the Geier Collections and Research Institute for granting me permission to examine and catalog some of the Sayler Park Mound site (33HA157). The Ball State University Department of Anthropology faculty and staff provided continual words of encouragement and support that helped drive this thesis forward. I would also like to thank the late William Snyder Webb, without whom half of the data presented here would be absent. I would like to thank my parents, Susan and Conrad Olson, for their continual support and encouragement. Finally, I am gratefull to my fiancé, Kristin Tripi, for always being there for me, and for always reminding me how far of a drive Muncie is from Cleveland. 1 Introduction Prehistoric architecture has fascinated archaeologists for decades in the Mid-Ohio River Valley, from Squier and Davis (1848) to the present (Redmond and Genheimer 2015). Noticeably absent from the most recent publication on prehistoric wooden post architecture (Redmond and Genheimer 2015) is the paired-post circle. This architectural design has been the subject of discussions for decades since the term was first used by William S. Webb (1940). Prior publications have attempted to tackle the function of the paired-post circle (Clay 1986, 1998, 2009; Purtill et al. 2014; Seeman 1986; Webb and Snow 1945) but none have attempted to systematically compare them to alternative interpretations or hypotheses. Rather, prior literature has simply attempted to extract a function from the data, rather than starting with hypothetical functions and comparing expectations to the data. That is, they were seeking confirmation or revelation instead of attempting to reject alternative hypotheses. These interpretations have been categorized here into three groups: habitation, feasting, and mortuary processing. While these interpretations are certainly not an exhaustive list of the possible functions of paired-post circles (PPCs), they are the most commonly discussed in archaeological literature. The temporal range of the PPCs falls between 400 B.C to A.D. 50 (Purtill et al. 2014:61-61). This time frame will be referred to as the Late Early Woodland. The area of interest for this study lies between the falls of the Ohio (modern Louisville) and the confluence of the Allegheny and Ohio rivers (modern Pittsburgh) for west and east boundaries, and from the Ohio River watershed boundaries to the north and south (see Figure 1). A complete list of all known structures that meet the defining criteria for PPCs, expounded in the methods section, are listed in Table 1. A sample of photographs and plan views of the known PPCs is illustrated in Figures 2-4. There are currently 36 known PPCs, with the most recently discovered in a report by the Bureau of Ethnology (Powell 1894). 2 The earliest interpretations of PPCs come from William S. Webb. He excavated more PPCs to date than any other professional archaeologist (Table 1). The majority (64 percent) of the sample population were recorded by Webb. He interpreted these structures as domestic architecture, perhaps the house of an important individual (Webb and Snow 1945). Webb based these interpretations on ethnographic analogies to the Timucua (Webb 1941). The absence of domestic architecture and sites also lead Webb to this conclusion, and many archaeologists quickly accepted this interpretation (Baby 1971; Dragoo 1963; Starr 1958). Late Early Woodland ritual practices and the PPC came under critical examination again in the 1980s, with the evidence for potential graveside feasting at Auvergne Mound (Clay 1983). Following Clay (1986) and Seeman (1986), the PPC was interpreted as a graveside ritual structure similar to the “charnel” house of later Hopewellian peoples (see Seeman 1979). Feasting in all referenced accounts (Clay 1983; Seeman 1986) is discussed in the context of graveside ritual and mortuary processing. Not until Purtill et al. (2014:74) was feasting suggested as a standalone activity without the interment of the dead. Mortuary processing was seen as an alternative interpretation (Seeman 1986) that fit with other interpretations that “Adena” traits were the antecedents to later Hopewellian traits. The PPC was interpreted as the predecessor to the later charnel house structures of Hopewell people. This interpretation follows the logic that because PPCs are below, and therefore predate the construction of the mound, that these structures were the location for pre-burial rituals or “mortuary processing.” Recently, PPCs have yet again come under critical examination. In this thesis, I build on the work of Purtill et al. (2014) by creating four predictive models from which I systematically and statistically analyze currently known PPCs. This new model builds upon the work of Claassen (2011), which demonstrates evidence for feminine ritual space at Late Early Woodland rock shelters in Kentucky, in addition to the previous interpretations of other authors. Activities that are encompassed in Claassen’s description of feminine space include, but are not limited to, menstrual seclusion, birthing seclusion, 3 female puberty rituals, and postpartum care of newborns and mothers. This interpretation also draws on ideas from the Ceremonial Subsistence Hypothesis (Nolan and Howard 2010). In order to test these hypotheses (interpretations),
Load more

Recommended publications
  • University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates Xii H
    [Ru)Ioc!RBo1, Vol.. 10, 1968, P. 61-114] UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN RADIOCARBON DATES XII H. R. CRANE and JAMES B. GRIFFIN The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan The following is a list of dates obtained since the compilation of List XI in December 1965. The method is essentially the same as de- scribed in that list. Two C02-CS2 Geiger counter systems were used. Equipment and counting techniques have been described elsewhere (Crane, 1961). Dates and estimates of error in this list follow the practice recommended by the International Radiocarbon Dating Conferences of 1962 and 1965, in that (a) dates are computed on the basis of the Libby half-life, 5570 yr, (b) A.D. 1950 is used as the zero of the age scale, and (c) the errors quoted are the standard deviations obtained from the numbers of counts only. In previous Michigan date lists up to and in- cluding VII, we have quoted errors at least twice as great as the statisti- cal errors of counting, to take account of other errors in the over-all process. If the reader wishes to obtain a standard deviation figure which will allow ample room for the many sources of error in the dating process, we suggest doubling the figures that are given in this list. We wish to acknowledge the help of Patricia Dahlstrom in pre- paring chemical samples and David M. Griffin and Linda B. Halsey in preparing the descriptions. I. GEOLOGIC SAMPLES 9240 ± 1000 M-1291. Hosterman's Pit, Pennsylvania 7290 B.C. Charcoal from Hosterman's Pit (40° 53' 34" N Lat, 77° 26' 22" W Long), Centre Co., Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • An Administrative History of the Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Midwest Archeological Center Lincoln, Nebraska An Administrative History of the Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska Report prepared by the Organization of American Historians for the National Park Service Theodore Catton, Principal Investigator Thomas Thiessen, Co-Author 2019 An Administrative History of the Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska Report prepared by the Organization of American Historians for the National Park Service Theodore Catton, Principal Investigator Thomas Thiessen, Co-Author United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Midwest Archeological Center Lincoln, Nebraska 2019 PREFACE The Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC) is a field office of the National Park Service in Lincoln, Nebraska, where a staff of archeologists and support personnel conduct archeological research and conservation. The Center is dedicated to preserving, investigating, and interpreting archeological resources in the national parks in the Midwest. It also renders archeological assistance to national parks outside the Midwest as well as to other entities outside the National Park System. MWAC was formed on July 1, 1969, from the former Missouri Basin Project (MBP). The MBP was the Lincoln field office of the Smithsonian Institution’s long- running program of salvage archeology known as the River Basin Surveys (RBS). The RBS had a 23-year run from 1946 to 1969. It was aimed at salvaging the archeological record in areas that were condemned for dam and reservoir development during the era of big dam projects following World War II. Administered by the Smithsonian Institution in cooperation with the National Park Service, the RBS formed the core of the federal government’s interagency archeological salvage program through the middle decades of the twentieth century, and it holds an important place in the development of archeology in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Mounds Regional Park
    Indian Mounds Regional Park Cultural Landscape Study and Interpretive Plan Part I Draft Updated September 2019 INDIAN MOUNDS REGIONAL PARK CULTURAL LANDSCAPE STUDY AND INTERPRETIVE PLAN PART 1 DRAFT UPDATED SEPTEMBER 2019 Prepared for: City of Saint Paul, Minnesota Prepared by: Quinn Evans Architects Madison, Wisconsin Ten x Ten Minneapolis, Minnesota Allies, LLC Minneapolis, Minnesota INDIAN MOUNDS REGIONAL PARK CULTURAL LANDSCAPE STUDY AND INTERPRETIVE PLAN III IV INDIAN MOUNDS REGIONAL PARK CULTURAL LANDSCAPE STUDY AND INTERPRETIVE PLAN Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Part 2: Landscape Treatment and Interpretation Project Purpose .......................................................................... 1.1 Study Area Location and Description ...................................... 1.1 NOTE: Part 2 is not part of the current draft. It will be included Project Approach ...................................................................... 1.2 in future submittals. Project Participants .................................................................... 1.3 Vision and Goals ...................................................................... 1.3 Chapter 4: Landscape and Visitor Experience Orthography ............................................................................. 1.4 Program and Landscape Interpretation Themes Terminology ............................................................................... 1.4 Chapter 2: Site History Chapter 5: Landscape Treatment Plan Introduction ................................................................................2.1
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Platform Mounds and Townhouses in the Cherokee Heartland: a Collaborative Approach
    REVISITING PLATFORM MOUNDS AND TOWNHOUSES IN THE CHEROKEE HEARTLAND: A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH BENJAMIN A. STEERE Department of Anthropology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA This article describes the development and initial results of the Western North Carolina Mounds and Towns Project, a collaborative endeavor initiated by the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee and the Coweeta Long Term Ecological Research Program at the University of Georgia. The goal of this project is to generate new information about the distribution of late prehistoric mounds and historic period townhouses in western North Carolina. This ongoing research has produced updated location and chronological data for Mis- sissippian period mounds and historic Cherokee townhouses, and led to the discovery of a possible location for the Jasper Allen mound. Using these new data, I suggest that David Hally’s model for the territorial size of Mississip- pian polities provides a useful framework for generating new research questions about social and political change in western North Carolina. I also posit that the cultural practice of rebuilding townhouses in place and on top of Mis- sissippian period platform mounds, a process that Christopher Rodning describes as “emplacement,” was common across western North Carolina. In terms of broader impacts, this project contributes positively to the development of indigenous archaeology in the Cherokee heartland. KEYWORDS: Cherokee Archaeology, Regional Analysis, Indigenous Archaeology, Townhouses, Mounds Prior to the late nineteenth century, the mountain is not incorporated into broader research frame- valleys of western North Carolina were marked by works (e.g., Riggs and Shumate [] on the dozens of platform mounds and townhouses built Kituwah Mound and Benyshek et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 152/Monday, August 9, 1999/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 1999 / Notices 43211 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR bone bracelet fragments, shell rings, Pelican Lake Gravel Pit site, Pope bone beads, beaver teeth fragments, red County, MN by unknown person(s) and National Park Service ochre, and a soil sample. donated to the University of Minnesota Site 21-PL-6/13 has been identified as Geology Laboratory. No known Notice of Inventory Completion for Arvilla Complex, an archeological individuals were identified. No Native American Human Remains and culture which cannot be identified with associated funerary objects are present. Associated Funerary Objects from the any present-day Indian tribe or group. Site 21-PO-3 is associated with the State of Minnesota in the Possession In 1941, human remains representing Archaic Tradition, a broad archeological of the Minnesota Indian Affairs 37 individuals were recovered from site tradition which cannot be identified Council, Bemidji, MN 21-MU-3, Lake Shetek Mounds, Murray with any present-day Indian tribe or County, MN during an archeological group. AGENCY: National Park Service. excavation conducted by L.A. Wilford of In 1963, human remains representing ACTION: Notice. the University of Minnesota. No known a minimum of 36 individuals were recovered from site 21-DK-41, River Notice is hereby given in accordance individuals were identified. The two Hills Housing Development site, Dakota with provisions of the Native American associated funerary objects include a County, MN by V. Helmen of the Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ceramic vessel and an end scraper. Science Museum of Minnesota when (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the Site 21-MU-3 has been identified only they were encountered during completion of an inventory of human as Woodland, a broad archeological construction.
    [Show full text]
  • An Abbreviated NAGPRA Inventory of the North Carolina Archaeological Collection
    An Abbreviated NAGPRA Inventory of the North Carolina Archaeological Collection by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. Patricia M. Lambert Vincas P. Steponaitis Clark Spencer Larsen and H. Trawick Ward Research Laboratories of Archaeology The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1998 An Abbreviated NAGPRA Inventory of the North Carolina Archaeological Collection by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. Patricia M. Lambert Vincas P. Steponaitis Clark Spencer Larsen and H. Trawick Ward Research Laboratories of Archaeology The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This inventory of archaeological collections at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is the culmination of a concerted effort that began in 1990, even before the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed by Congress. Its successful completion would not have been possible without the help of many individuals and institutions, whose contributions the authors wish to acknowledge here. First and foremost, we thank the many student assistants who worked tirelessly on this project over the past six years. Robyn Astin, Dean Foster and Heather Pearcy began the project by organizing the collections in preparation for the inventory. Later, Elizabeth Monahan assisted in the identification of the skeletal remains, while Jane Eastman identified and described the funerary objects. Thomas Maher and Timothy Mooney carried out all the digital photography. Patricia Samford helped arrange the visits by tribal representatives, and, along with Arlena
    [Show full text]
  • Collaborative Archaeology As a Tool for Preserving Sacred Sites in the Cherokee Heartland Chapter Author(S): Benjamin A
    Berghahn Books Chapter Title: Collaborative Archaeology as a Tool for Preserving Sacred Sites in the Cherokee Heartland Chapter Author(s): Benjamin A. Steere Book Title: Indigeneity and the Sacred Book Subtitle: Indigenous Revival and the Conservation of Sacred Natural Sites in the Americas Book Editor(s): Fausto Sarmiento, Sarah Hitchner Published by: Berghahn Books. (2019) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvw04ck0.16 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Berghahn Books is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Indigeneity and the Sacred This content downloaded from 152.46.28.205 on Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:44:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Chapter 8 Collaborative Archaeology as a Tool for Preserving Sacred Sites in the Cherokee Heartland Benjamin A. Steere Introduction Archaeology has the potential to play an important role in the preserva- tion of sacred sites in North America. In certain cases, locations that are thought to be sacred by Native American communities can be identifi ed using archaeological methods. This is true for many sites considered sa- cred by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in western North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • DGA.Vita 5/93
    David G. Anderson Curriculum Vitae October 2015 CURRICULUM VITAE DAVID G. ANDERSON PERSONAL INFORMATION: Birth date: 31 July 1949, St. Louis, Missouri Marital Status: Married Jenalee Muse, 28 November 1981 Home Address: Work Address: 1619 Jefferson Avenue David G. Anderson Knoxville, Tennessee Department of Anthropology (803) 259–6289 250 South Stadium Hall The University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0720 865-974-2960 email: [email protected] EDUCATION: PhD University of Michigan, Anthropology, 1990 Dissertation: Political Change in Chiefdom Societies: Cycling in the Late Prehistoric Southeastern United States. DOWNLOAD PDF MA University of Arkansas, Anthropology, 1979 Thesis: An Evaluation of the Excavation Strategies Employed at the Zebree Site (3MS20): 1968–1976 Field Seasons. DOWNLOAD PDF BA Case Western Reserve University, Anthropology, 1972 High School Baldwin County High School, Milledgeville, Georgia, 1967 HONORS: Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2014. College of Arts and Sciences Senior Research/Creative Achievement Award University of Tennessee, 2012 College of Arts and Sciences Advising Award, University of Tennessee, 2009. Excellence in Cultural Resource Management Research Award, Society for American Archaeology, 1999 Presidential Recognition Award, Society for American Archaeology, 1997 Dissertation Prize, Society for American Archaeology, 1991. 1 David G. Anderson Curriculum Vitae October 2015 Clarence B. Moore Award for Excellence in Southeastern Archaeological Studies, Lower Mississippi Valley Survey/Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 1990. Oak Ridge Affiliated Universities, Department of Energy, Dissertation Fellowship, August 1988–March 1990. Rackham Nontraditional Fellowship, University of Michigan, 1983–1984. Doreen Ozker Memorial Fellowship, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 1983–1984. EXPERIENCE: Positions Held: Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Paul's Indian Burial Mounds Paul Nelson Macalester College, [email protected]
    Macalester College DigitalCommons@Macalester College Staff ubP lications Institute for Global Citizenship 5-20-2008 St. Paul's Indian Burial Mounds Paul Nelson Macalester College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/igcstaffpub Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Nelson, Paul, "St. Paul's Indian Burial Mounds" (2008). Staff Publications. Paper 1. http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/igcstaffpub/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Institute for Global Citizenship at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Staff ubP lications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. St. Paul’s Indian Burial Mounds -- Paul D. Nelson Six ancient burial mounds crown the park land, protected by law. They are mounds (those still standing), they were crest of St. Paul’s Dayton’s Bluff. Their fenced and guarded, sealed and mute. probably built in the era 200 BC -- 400 setting is spectacular, above the gorge What can they tell us? AD. Even this spacious estimate rests where the Mississippi feints north be- upon a foundation of guesswork. No ra- fore turning decisively south. These are How many were there originally? diocarbon dating of anything from the the tallest and most prominent burial Theodore H. Lewis found thirty- mounds has been done. The dates are mounds on the northern 600 miles of nine in the late 1870s, in two separate based on similarities between these the river. and perhaps unrelated groups. They mounds and their contents and similar The mounds of Indian Mounds stretched in an irregular line along structures and artifacts found and stud- Park are St.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Statewide Multiple Property Documentation Form for the Woodland Tradition Section F
    USDI/NPS NRHP Multiple Property Documentation Form Woodland Tradition in Minnesota (Page 148) F. ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES Five property types are listed for this MPDF: habitation sites; resource procurement and processing sites; special-use sites; and mortuary sites, subdivided into mound and nonmound mortuary sites. It is assumed that the initial or Phase II field investigations at the site have been sufficient to describe it in terms of size, types of artifacts and ecofacts, artifact density, presence of single or multiple components, presence or absence of features or the potential for features or ecofacts, or other site characteristics. These property types address inferred site function, and the assignment of a site to one of these site types should serve to focus research questions, not to preclude further analysis into the range of activities that might have taken place at the site. In addition, one site might reflect aspects of multiple property types (for example a nonmound burial within a habitation site). In general, Woodland properties in Minnesota will be evaluated under National Register Criterion D, sites that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory, and to address research questions such as those identified above in the statewide themes or for each complex. Specific information for Criterion D is discussed below. In some instances, Criteria A or C might also be relevant. Criterion A (sites that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history) might be relevant for a site that was important in the history of Minnesota archaeology, such as the type site for a complex or phase, or a site where critical information has been acquired (such as Gull Lake Dam 21CA27, or Petaga Point 21ML11).
    [Show full text]
  • Local Teacher Helps Turn National Park Into Area's Best Classroom
    National Park Service Park Newsletter U.S. Department of the Interior Welcome Local Teacher Helps Turn National Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, originally established in 1923 as Park into Area’s Best Classroom Mound City Group National Monument, by Park Ranger Susan Knisley preserves and protects five earthwork complexes built by American Indians nearly two thousand years ago. These earthen monuments include miles of walls formed into geometric and free-form shapes as well as mounds of varying sizes and shapes. Each earthwork contains a unique story of the people who designed, constructed, and used these special places. Today you can learn a part of the story by taking a site tour, visiting the museum, attending a special event, browsing our website, or talking to a National Park Service ranger. Walk among the mounds at Mound City Group and think about the effort it took to build the mounds and walls using only hand tools. Gaze around the park and look for one of the many Students participated in programs at Hopewell Culture NHP and in the Midwest Archeological Center animals depicted in objects made by the (MWAC). Pictured above while visiting Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, Nebraska, from left to right: Timothy Everheart, Jeremy Krech, Corey Lump, Dacia Posey, Emily Kinneer, Hopewell peoples, such as deer, squirrels, and teacher Cathy Daugherty. rabbits, cardinals, vultures, or frogs. Look at what remains today and learn about This program is important because it expands ollowing the 2010 school year, a group of on a continuing partnership with MWAC in stewardship so that future generations can F Paint Valley High School students began a Lincoln, Nebraska and the Paint Valley Local learn from these earthworks.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form * nmiui This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property____________________________________________________ historic name Chickasaw Heritage Park (preferred)_________________________________ other names/site number Fort Pickering; Jackson Mound Park; DeSoto Park; 40SY5________________ 2. Location street & number corner of Riverside Blvd. & Ornamental Metal Museum Dr. NAQ not for publication city or town Memphis NAfj vicinity state Tennessee code TN county Shelby code 157 zip code 38104 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this ^ nomination Q request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set for in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property ^ meets Q does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]